The Sharing Economy Fights Back Against Regulators

An anonymous reader writes in with a story about the advocacy group "Peers". The group says their goal is to “mainstream, protect, and grow the sharing economy.” "The growth of the 'sharing economy,' a loosely defined term generally referring to the internet-enabled peer-to-peer exchanges of goods, has brought with it a shift in the way we think about consumption. Its rise has been fast, and loud. What started with a few enterprising individuals willing to let complete strangers sleep in their homes and use their possessions has now developed into a formidable economic force that threatens to upend several different industries. Along the way, it has posed some major legal challenges. The companies that are pushing it forward have continually undermined local ordinances, consumer safeguards, and protectionist regulations alike. As a result, governments around the country are trying to reign them in. That’s where Silicon Valley’s newest advocacy group comes in."

Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks

[h4rr4r]

The food trucks park in public, they have to adhere to normal regulations and are a far better method for many downtown areas. Why use up valuable real estate for a restaurant people will only be in for a few hours a day? Ride sharing seems fine to me, cars have to be inspected for a reason.

If you really believe that about most people you are a sad husk of a man.

Sharing economy = can't tax them

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's the major problem, eh? Can't tax it, can't regulate it. As government gets larger and larger, it needs more and more money to sustain itself. It seeks out new forms of revenue from wherever it finds weakness. Renting out your spare bedroom in New York City causes a lot of losses. No bed tax (in NYC it's something like 20%, or used to be when I worked in hotels), no income tax for the housekeeping staff, no sales tax from the gift shop, etc.

Let's not even get into room owners picking and choosing clients. I've seen them proudly say that they check Facebook and such beforehand, only allow professionals and other clean people, etc. Yeah, what they really mean is "no Negroes". When the "sharing economy" is beyond the reach of government regulation, problems like this that society thought solved re-appear with disturbing frequency.

Re:Race to the Bottom

[modmans2ndcoming]

wait... so efficiently exchanging resources will lead to destruction? What school of economics is that from?

Re:Race to the Bottom

[Gr8Apes]

Nothing is being created. Did you even read TFA's (I'll wait for the roar of laughter to die down) on what these supposed sharing economy traits are? I did, and several other stories about the phenomenon besides that were stated earlier. In each case of "success" it's people making money off what they already own. It's the rich person living in a row house splitting the levels into apartments and renting them out and living in the basement with the proceeds of the rent. Or the person with a car working as a taxi driver for the day to make his car and gas payments while trying to have a real job. It's not a positive statement.

Re:Reminds me of Food Trucks

[Anonymous Coward]

[Food trucks] pay no rent or utilities

Well, of course not. After all, land owners never charge anyone to set up businesses on their property. And as everyone knows, food trucks all have Mr. Fusions to power their cooking equipment, and are staffed by magical elves who can create water out of thin air.

Or you're an idiot. One of those.

Sharing not good for a debt-based economy

[JoeyRox]

For better and most often worse the U.S. economy requires continuous economic growth in order to support it's debt-based structure. A $1.00 of debt today requires $1.03 of consumption next year otherwise the debt interest can't be serviced. This is why the Federal Reserve is so hell bent on preventing deflation, even going so far to say that a moderate amount of inflation is a "good thing". This fact is most critical for the U.S. Government itself since it is the largest issuer of debt in the economy. Sharing and frugality are incongruent with such a system so we'll see much more pushback if the sharing trend picks up steam.

Re:Race to the Bottom

[Anonymous Coward]

so efficiently exchanging resources will lead to destruction? What school of economics is that from?

From the school of hard knocks, which pre-dates the study of economics by several thousand years. The biggest, baddest tribes efficiently exchanged resources until the biggest baddest tribal leaders became kings. They then maintained a good solid hold on power by incorporating the local religion into some variation on the divine right of kings. It's only in the past couple hundred years or so that the West exposed that all as bullshit. The Dalai Lama had a good thing going along those lines in the 20th century; not to say that it was any of China's business to be the ones to break it.

It's easy to be cheaper

[Hentes]

It's easy to be cheaper than the established players when you're not paying taxes.

Re:Sharing not good for a debt-based economy

[Bob9113]

even going so far to say that a moderate amount of inflation is a "good thing".

Unless you believe that stuffing money into pickle jars and burying them in the yard produces wealth, a moderate amount of inflation is a good thing. It motivates investment over hording.

Re:Sharing economy = can't tax them

[zippthorne]

My government keeps adding to its list. I'm not sure it's a coincidence that this also happens to expand its power and reach.